|
We're conducting a short, 10-question survey to gather tips, concerns & trends for a 2026 Leader Insights course on MeyerFire University and a talk on Industry Shifts Due to Technology at the NFPA Conference in June. If you'd like to participate, it's only 10 questions and takes about two minutes: At the end we have a question on what topics you'd like to see us cover in the future as part of MeyerFire University.
Thanks in advance! When hose allowance is added to the sprinkler demand on a Class III Standpipe/Sprinkler wet riser, where on the system are the inside and outside flow and pressure allowances input when calculating the system?
NFPA 13 Chapter 19 states that the allowances are not required when calculating a combined system, which appears to contradict NFPA 14 requirements to include them. In my case, the sprinkler demand is for OH2 (ceiling higher than 40 ft), resulting in a sprinkler demand plus hose allowance that is greater than the standpipe demand. If I don’t include hose allowance in the sprinkler calculation as per Chapter 19, this combined system is not equivalent and robust as two independent systems. Any thoughts? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Is sprinkler protection required for the overhang shown in the simplified detail below? If sprinkler protection IS NOT required, which allowable sprinkler omission does this comply with in NFPA 13 (2022)? If sprinkler protection IS required, what component(s) are triggering this requirement? Thank you! Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe  We have a high-rise building (residential from 5-24 floors).
Can CPVC listed piping be utilized in high‑rise fire sprinkler systems (residential portion), and are there restrictions related to maximum elevation and/or pressure limitations? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Under NFPA 13, 2022: in noncombustible stair shafts, can sprinklers be omitted at the entire bottom area of the stairs?
For example, if the first floor is the bottom of the stairs, can sprinklers be omitted under the second floor at the area where you enter the stairwell? Section 9.3.4.2.3.1 states, "Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from the bottom of the stairwell when the space under the stairs at the bottom is blocked off so that no storage can occur." Is this only referring to under the intermediate landing and not the entire first floor area of the stairs? I know that at the beginning of this Section 9.3.4.2.1 states in part "under the first accessible landing above the bottom of the shaft." So does the omission apply in this case? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Would ESFR K25.2 be permitted to be installed on a single interlock pre-action system?
I have a system conversion that is currently a gridded warehouse with K25.2 ESFR pendents that the client wants to convert to single interlock. The system will be converted to not be gridded anymore, but I am not seeing any clear information on whether the existing ESFR can remain. If we were to remove the sprinklers, it would now dive into possible in-racks to protect the class IV storage. Warehouse is 35ft max height, bar joist. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Does the fire hydrant flow rate need to be included in the total design flow rate?
Assuming a building is only equipped with a standpipe system and a private hydrant system, both supplied by a private fire pump, does the design flow rate of the fire pump still need to account for the fire hydrant flow rate? In addition, in accordance with NFPA 14‑2024 10.5.3.5.1, when the local fire department can meet the water supply capacity requirements, is the supply main for the standpipe system still required to be arranged in a loop? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Is this an allowed and feasible installation for FHV's that are required to be installed at intermediate landings, to avoid penetrations in a precast stair? Is there a code basis against this, or any differing recommendations on routing here? See image below. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe  We have a situation where we need to replace a 40-year-old fire pump where the original RPZ is located downstream of the pump. Our current code requires all BFP's upstream of the pump. We are worried that the RPZ will start dumping every time the pump is started.
Does anyone have experience with this that could lend a recommendation? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe NFPA 13R, Section 6.6.5.1 (2019 Edition) requires sprinklers to be installed to protect balconies, decks, etc, that serve dwelling units. What constitutes the definition of "serving dwelling units?" If we have a landing over a stair in an exterior corridor, would that landing over the stair "serve a dwelling unit?" This is a situation that the inspector is now bringing up at the end of the project and is requiring protection, even though the plans were approved, stating that this area was not to be protected per sections 6.6.5 and 6.6.5.1. Please see the attached picture and let me know your thoughts. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe  For a dental office, is a sprinkler required in the gas storage closet (nitrous oxide and oxygen) on the main floor?
The basement is sprinklered, but the main floor is not. If sprinklers are required, can the system be tied into the existing basement sprinkler system? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I represent an AHJ in Massachusetts and have a potential tenant who reached out to my office about what sprinkler work might need to be done during an upfit, I don't have all the information on their plans or level of alterations.
My question includes MA 780 CMR (Mass building code) and MGL 148 S26G (sprinklers in buildings over 7500 sqft). The building is all business occupancies and is a 1892 build with 12,952 sqft. No current fire protection in the building. The size brings into question 148 S26G, my question is would a level 2 alteration or level 3 alteration trigger 26g as "major renovation" and trigger the entire building needing sprinklers? The shop in question might only account for 10% of the square footage, so would that be major in the context of the building? If that doesn't trigger it, would the level 2 or 3 for B use group in the retail space that is smaller than 12,000 sqft itself, but part of a building that is 12,000+ trigger sprinklers in the renovated space? Thanks for your insights. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I appreciate this community and thank you in advance. I'm new to the fire protection industry, having been in other building engineering disciplines for many years.
For multiple buildings on a campus using the IBC. "IBC 905.3.2 Building Area Amendment In buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet (929 m2) in area per story, Class I automatic wet or manual wet standpipes shall be provided where any portion of the building's interior area is more than 200 feet (60,960 mm) of travel, vertically and horizontally, from the nearest point of fire department vehicle access. Exceptions: 1. Buildings equipped throughout with automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1. 2. Group A-4, A-5, F-2, R-2, S-2 or U occupancies." Is there any reason not to eliminate the standpipes if the height and occupancy thresholds aren't exceeded? One of the buildings is a two-story, 60,000 SF building. The path of travel plans shows a 150+ foot range. Does this cause any concern? I know the standpipes are to assist in manual firefighting ops, but is eliminating them increasing future risks to the occupants? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I have 6" and 8" sprinkler pipes that need to be supported by pipe stands at 26 ft.
What does NFPA 13 require to be done/designed for this situation? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe As an AHJ, how do we respond to someone that wants to use new technology that is not recognized by Code / Standard?
Such as Sonic Fire Tech? https://www.sonicfiretech.com/ Do we recognize it or require UL / FM / "Approval" before allowing it as an approved system? In other words, what would be the basis for saying "no" at this stage? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I am doing CMDA overhead sprinklers for in-rack class 4 storage at 15' - a new system.
As I was navigating through NFPA 13 2022 Chapter 21, I came to 21.4, which seems to be where I should be. My question is: 21.4.1.1.1 is where you start, which states that if it's a new sprinkler system, the demand shall be determined in accordance with 24.4.1.2.2.1. BUT, I skipped that and went on to 21.4.1.2.1.1, which seems to be for the EXACT SAME CRITERIA (unless I cannot read/comprehend, which is possible)! So when would you use 24.4.1.2.2.1 over 21.4.1.2.1.1? When we use 24.4.1.2.2.1 with the modification chart, we get a density of 0.297, and when we use 24.4.1.2.1.1, it calls for 0.30. So they're pretty much the same... but I'm not seeing why you would ever use 24.4.1.2.1.1 since 24.4.1.1.1 directs you to 24.4.1.2.2.1 and bypasses the other. Hopefully, this makes sense. --- 21.4.1.1 General 21.4.1.1.1 Ceiling sprinkler water demand for new systems shall be determined in accordance with 21.4.1.2.2.1 for single and double row racks or... 21.4.1.1.2 Ceiling sprinkler water demand for the modification of existing systems... 21.4.1.2 Protection Criteria for Single or Double-Row Rack Storage of Class I-IV Commodities over 12 ft Up to and Including 25 ft in Height. 21.4.1.2.1 New Systems Criteria for Single- or Double-Row Rack Storage of Class I-IV Commodities Stored Over 12 ft Up to and Including 25 ft in Height. 21.4.1.2.1.1 For single- or double-row racks for Class I, II, III, or IV commodities, encapsulated or nonencapsulated, the ceiling sprinkler demand.... shall be selected from the criteria in Table 21.4.1.2.1.1(a) through Table 21.4.1.2.1.1(c) that are appropriate for... and shall be modified as appropriate by 21.4.1.4. --- Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe In a four-story educational building, we have a large pipe chase that wraps around the men’s and women’s restrooms on each floor. The highlighted area in the attached sketch is the pipe chase area.  The wall on the left (with the red arrows pointing at it) is a 1 hour rated shaft wall. All the other walls around the pipe chase are non-rated wall assemblies. There are doors (blue boxes) giving access to this area in three different locations. There isn’t any equipment or sources of ignition located inside the chase, just plumbing pipe.
While the area is not to be used for storage, we are concerned that the presence of the doors will allow people to do so. The Architect/Engineer has directed us not to protect this area with sprinklers. Are sprinklers required inside this chase or can they be omitted as directed by the A/E? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I'm working on a fire protection design for a new apartment building. The architect is adding what they're calling horizontal exits throughout the building, which will increase the number of required standpipes per the local building code (IBC-based, 2025) Section 905.4. Per the exception to 905.4.2, I do not believe we will need hose connections on both sides of every horizontal exit within the building. I think additional standpipes and hose connections will only be required in the center of the building. Other than the egress stairwells, where are standpipes and hose connections required to be located? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe  Thank you all for taking the time to make the Forum a better place! We appreciate our Top March 2026 Contributors.
I have a plan reviewer requiring calculations (CFH) for a diesel fuel tank because the vent extends further than the UL label is calculated for.
What are the guidelines and how is this calculation performed? The comment: "Provide the required emergency vent capacity, in Cubic Feet Per Hour (CFH), for the primary and secondary fuel tank emergency vents. The venting capacity should be indicated on the UL label on fuel tank. The shop drawings don't list the emergency vent capacity. Note: The capacity listed on the UL label is calculated with the vent within 12 inches of the tank body. If the vent is extended above the tank more than 12-inches, additional calculations are required to account for the additional piping and height above the fuel tank. These calculations are required to be computed by a registered engineer." Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I have a client with a 10-story office building/parking garage, a fire pump in the below-grade level, and a combined wet standpipe with a manifold on the roof for testing. The building is getting some age on it, and when performing a flow test from the roof manifold, the roof drains will leak water into the top floor offices.
The question that was posed to me by the building manager was, "Can we tie into the bottom of the standpipe and run a new test connection to the outside at ground level?" Shooting the water over the side of the building is not really an option, doable, yes, but not really an option. Just wanting some thoughts on this, my initial response was no, but then I had never been posed with this question either. If not, is it possible to permanently tie somewhere else, or conduct the test in a different way? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe NFPA 14 requires PRV redundancy when more than two hose connections are supplied downstream of a PRV.
Does NFPA 13 have a similar requirement for sprinkler systems, or can multiple sprinkler systems be controlled by a single PRV? We are proposing to feed a riser manifold controlling (6) sprinkler systems to be supplied by a single ORV without a redundant loop. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe NFPA 13 Section 16.2.4 concerning protective coverings for sprinklers only references spray booths and mixing rooms.
I have a building that produces particulates in the air (a chip and tortilla factory). The concern is that we replace these sprinklers, and they will quickly need to be replaced again in a couple of years (96 total). I want to put on cellophane bags to protect them. The existing sprinklers are standard response. I plan to go to the AHJ for their approval, but I wanted to get the opinion of others who may have experienced something like this. Thank you in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Can a fire pump test report be used in place of a hydrant flow test?
For an existing building, a fire pump flow test has to be done annually. It should include all the information a hydrant flow test provides to perform a hydraulic calculation for an existing building modification. Is there any code basis for taking this approach? I have an AHJ that keeps pushing back on this approach for determining the water supply information. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop July '26 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
August 2026
PE PREP SERIES |
RSS Feed
